What George Orwell meant by "Socialism"

[CornusKousa]

Rob lies via memes, because he doesn't know what socialism is.

 

[pecksniff]

This passage from "Looking Back on the Spanish War" (1943) is very interesting, because it foreshadows themes later fleshed out in Nineteen Eighty-Four -- if you have ever read that book, you will see what I mean:

The struggle for power between the Spanish Republican parties is an unhappy, far-off thing which I have no wish to revive at this date. I only mention it in order to say: believe nothing, or next to nothing, of what you read about internal affairs on the Government side. It is all, from whatever source, party propaganda — that is to say, lies. The broad truth about the war is simple enough. The Spanish bourgeoisie saw their chance of crushing the labour movement, and took it, aided by the Nazis and by the forces of reaction all over the world. It is doubtful whether more than that will ever be established.

I remember saying once to Arthur Koestler, ‘History stopped in 1936’, at which he nodded in immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism in general, but more particularly of the Spanish civil war. Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’. Yet in a way, horrible as all this was, it was unimportant. It concerned secondary issues — namely, the struggle for power between the Comintern and the Spanish left-wing parties, and the efforts of the Russian Government to prevent revolution in Spain. But the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government presented to the world was not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were. But as for the Fascists and their backers, how could they come even as near to the truth as that? How could they possibly mention their real aims? Their version of the war was pure fantasy, and in the circumstances it could not have been otherwise.

The only propaganda line open to the Nazis and Fascists was to represent themselves as Christian patriots saving Spain from a Russian dictatorship. This involved pretending that life in Government Spain was just one long massacre (vide the Catholic Herald or the Daily Mail — but these were child's play compared with the Continental Fascist press), and it involved immensely exaggerating the scale of Russian intervention. Out of the huge pyramid of lies which the Catholic and reactionary press all over the world built up, let me take just one point — the presence in Spain of a Russian army. Devout Franco partisans all believed in this; estimates of its strength went as high as half a million. Now, there was no Russian army in Spain. There may have been a handful of airmen and other technicians, a few hundred at the most, but an army there was not. Some thousands of foreigners who fought in Spain, not to mention millions of Spaniards, were witnesses of this. Well, their testimony made no impression at all upon the Franco propagandists, not one of whom had set foot in Government Spain. Simultaneously these people refused utterly to admit the fact of German or Italian intervention at the same time as the Germany and Italian press were openly boasting about the exploits of their’ legionaries’. I have chosen to mention only one point, but in fact the whole of Fascist propaganda about the war was on this level.

This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. After all, the chances are that those lies, or at any rate similar lies, will pass into history. How will the history of the Spanish war be written? If Franco remains in power his nominees will write the history books, and (to stick to my chosen point) that Russian army which never existed will become historical fact, and schoolchildren will learn about it generations hence. But suppose Fascism is finally defeated and some kind of democratic government restored in Spain in the fairly near future; even then, how is the history of the war to be written? What kind of records will Franco have left behind him? Suppose even that the records kept on the Government side are recoverable — even so, how is a true history of the war to be written? For, as I have pointed out already, the Government, also dealt extensively in lies. From the anti-Fascist angle one could write a broadly truthful history of the war, but it would be a partisan history, unreliable on every minor point. Yet, after all, some kind of history will be written, and after those who actually remember the war are dead, it will be universally accepted. So for all practical purposes the lie will have become truth.

I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written. In the past people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case they believed that ‘facts’ existed and were more or less discoverable. And in practice there was always a considerable body of fact which would have been agreed to by almost everyone. If you look up the history of the last war in, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, you will find that a respectable amount of the material is drawn from German sources. A British and a German historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but there would still be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as ‘the truth’ exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as ‘Science’. There is only ‘German Science’, ‘Jewish Science’, etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, ‘It never happened’ — well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five — well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs — and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement.

 

[JohnnySavage]

wall of text deleted

3. Do not upload copyrighted images or post articles in their entirety. Fair use laws allow some posting of copyrighted material, such as excerpts from articles and screen captures from movies, under certain circumstances. Please do a Google search under "Fair Use" if you want to understand this issue better. Also, out of respect for other users, please limit your excerpts to less than 5 paragraphs.

 

[gxnn]

Are Socialism and Communism the same thing?

I am from China.

While you westerners call my country a communist country, we call it a socialist country or a country in the early stage of development of socialism,or we are made to know it like that.

In our political textbook, socialism is the infant period of communism. When we are in the era of communism, there is plenty of everything so we will not worry about food, money and other things, what makes us ashamed is that we do not have enough time and energy and other valuable things to give to the society.

But now we are baffled to see capitalists who are allowed to join the Communist Party, which is believed to make it its mission to remove capitalism and capitalists from the earth.

 

[pecksniff]

In our political textbook, socialism is the infant period of communism. When we are in the era of communism, there is plenty of everything so we will not worry about food, money and other things, what makes us ashamed is that we do not have enough time and energy and other valuable things to give to the society.

Do the Chinese people actually believe that? Do they expect true communism to arrive someday?

 

[gxnn]

Do the Chinese people actually believe that? Do they expect true communism to arrive someday?

Those who were born in the early years of the New China, that is, the time from 1949 when the republic was founded to 1978 when the reform and opening up started, are convinced that there will be a communist society in future.
The later and newer generations will not, because they have had more means to get into touch with the real world and they are not so easily "fooled". Most young people know more Marvel, KFC, McDonald's, Disney, Mickey Mouse, Hollywood than the history and heroes of their own country.
So now in colleges and schools of all levels, communist ideology education has been strengthened. A teacher should follow the instruction of great leaders in telling what a student should behave. English language can be taught as an instrument only to know more about science and technology with, but not for learning literary and cultural works or movies or TV dramas.

 

[AlexBailey]

Capitalism fails every day.

Everyday goods are wasted. Everyday the wealthy exploit the poor. Everyday the rich get richer. Everyday the cost of living increases. Everyday someone falls through the cracks. Wealthy opportunists buy political influence to further their ability to accumulate wealth. Everyday decisions are made to further wealth without regard to consequences such a environmental pollution and destruction.

The best things about capitalism is that since it is not under centralized control, there is no one who can be held responsible for the failures of society. If you want to see something happen it's up to you to make a plan and put it into action. If a business is unsuccessful it can fail without bringing down the entire system.

Eventually the accumulation of wealth becomes a problem when resources concentrate and dwindle. Capitalism eventually leads to a type of feudalism, where land and everything on it is owned by a smaller and smaller portion of the population and the poor are lucky if they can secure a position working for a wealthy business owner and paying landlord who will prioritize tenants needs over maximizing profits.


The failures of Socialism can be large scale and catastrophic.

The failures of Socialism can be pointed to and blamed directly. If something bad happens it as if the system caused the damage with intent or culpable neglect. If a part of the system fails there are ripple effects and austerity measures that are prioritized for the benefit of the state, and it is possible for the entire system to break down.

Those with wealth and ability do best with capitalism, those without wealth and opportunity are often better served with some form of socialism. Both look good on paper in ideal form but both need aspects of each other to maintain function and balance.

 

[Rightguide]

There are certainly more totalitarian models of socialism than Orwell's. Which is more totalitarian than Sanders'. And Biden has never given any hint of socialist leanings.

No matter the alleged model, they are all roads that lead to the same dark destination. History shows us the price of placing one's trust in those who sing the siren song of socialism. The cost to humanity has been frightfully enormous. The biggest threat to freedom in America is the orchestrated ignorance of knowledge imposed by our left leaning educators on the subject of socialism, and the enormity of humanity sacrificed on its alter.

We see in our own President, who ran as a unifier and a moderate Democrat, suddenly mutate into a communist style tyrant attacking his own people, alleging powers in open defiance of the Constitution, and his oath of office. We see his thirst for power, born of frustration, create in his mind illusions of authority dangerous to the well being of the American people and the sanctity of our republican form of government. We cringe as we see him destroy himself and those around him with the hopelessness of defending his mounting lies and his aberrant behavior.

What will he do next? Will he deny the constitutional rights of those who oppose his lawless mandates? Will he coerce private businesses to fire such people employed by them? Will he, in his insanity have them branded for life, or just taken out and shot? Will he turn our military against opposing state governments? As we speak he personally threatens state Governors with alleged unexplainable "powers as President."

This is how Pecksniff's a nice peaceful transition into innocent socialism has already been cancelled by a power hungry lunatic who now attacks his own people with a vengeance more focused than he'd use on our enemies. Driven by a desire for totalitarian control.

 

[CornusKousa]

Capitalism fails every day.

Everyday goods are wasted. Everyday the wealthy exploit the poor. Everyday the rich get richer. Everyday the cost of living increases. Everyday someone falls through the cracks. Wealthy opportunists buy political influence to further their ability to accumulate wealth. Everyday decisions are made to further wealth without regard to consequences such a environmental pollution and destruction.

Those can be negative side effects, but they are not failures as equity of outcome is not a claimed feature or responsibility of the capitalist "system".

With capitalism YOU are responsible for your own life.

The best things about capitalism is that since it is not under centralized control, there is no one who can be held responsible for the failures of society. If you want to see something happen it's up to you to make a plan and put it into action. If a business is unsuccessful it can fail without bringing down the entire system.

Exactly....you're responsible for your own economic wellbeing.

Then the welfare state comes along and ruins everything.

Those with wealth and ability do best with capitalism, those without wealth and opportunity are often better served with some form of socialism. Both look good on paper in ideal form but both need aspects of each other to maintain function and balance.

If that were the case socialism would be far more successful than it is. Just a utopia of artist and scientist solving all the worlds woes and making everything wonderful and equitable.

But that's never actually happened. Turns out if you give lazy dumb sacks of shit a bunch of money, the overwhelming majority blow it on degeneracy.

It's not the wealth or the ubiquitous opportunity, it's the ability to recognize the opportunity and take advantage of it.

Also basic monetary education.

Most people are poor because they're fuckin' shit with the money that they do have.

It's why like 97% of lotto winners wind up totally fucked within just a couple years of getting millions of dollars.... music, movie and sports stars blow through tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars just to wind up broke.

It's also why people who do understand money and are diligent with their finances are able to start as have nothing working class teens and grind up a sweet tits comfortable upper middle class life in 15-20 years.

 

[pecksniff]

I agree, Orwell is someone I admire. Conveying thoughts in this manner of writing is a true gift and he led me to other great thinker and writer's.

Have you read Eugene Zamiatan(Yevgeny Zamyatin) ? We? He is believed to have inspired Orwell.

Orwell wrote a review of Zamyatin's We. He notes certain similarities to Huxley's Brave New World, both being about the triumph of technology and rationality at the expense of freedom.

Orwell's own Nineteen Eighty-Four was a very different, less subtle kind of dystopia. Many people might like it in Huxley's World State, but nobody would want to live in Oceania.

 

[stxjimmy]

We see in our own President, who ran as a unifier and a moderate Democrat, suddenly mutate into a communist style tyrant attacking his own people

This belongs in a fantasy thread,

alleging powers in open defiance of the Constitution, and his oath of office

And this is referring to Trump.

 

[pecksniff]

We see in our own President, who ran as a unifier and a moderate Democrat, suddenly mutate into a communist style tyrant attacking his own people, alleging powers in open defiance of the Constitution, and his oath of office. We see his thirst for power, born of frustration, create in his mind illusions of authority dangerous to the well being of the American people and the sanctity of our republican form of government. We cringe as we see him destroy himself and those around him with the hopelessness of defending his mounting lies and his aberrant behavior.

Well, we haven't seen any of that yet.

 

[pecksniff]

We see in our own President, who ran as a unifier and a moderate Democrat, suddenly mutate into a communist style tyrant attacking his own people, alleging powers in open defiance of the Constitution, and his oath of office. We see his thirst for power, born of frustration, create in his mind illusions of authority dangerous to the well being of the American people and the sanctity of our republican form of government. We cringe as we see him destroy himself and those around him with the hopelessness of defending his mounting lies and his aberrant behavior.

And now, nine months later, we still haven't seen any of that happen.

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

Yep, his admirers on the right don't get that he wasn't condemning socialism at large, just a particular type of it.

The type you and the other comrades are big fans of... IRON FISTS ON HAMMERS N' SICKLES!!!

 

[pecksniff]

The type you and the other comrades are big fans of... IRON FISTS ON HAMMERS N' SICKLES!!!

No, most self-ID'd socialists nowadays mean something closer to Orwell's conception of it. Communists are rare outside Communist countries. Even the CPUSA is more of a social-democratic party nowadays.

 

[SimonDoom]

As it happens, Orwell is my personal hero. Quite a thinker for someone who never went to college, and he proved in the Spanish Civil War that, unlike most of the British intelligentsia, he was willing to put his life on the line for his principles. He is sometimes called "the last Englishman," as Thomas More is called "the first Englishman," and you might wonder what a 16th-Century Catholic could have in common with a 20th-Century atheist and socialist -- well, it's that.

I also admire his extremely lucid writing style.

I agree. Animal Farm and 1984 are two of the books that have most influenced me. I agree also with what you said about his socialism--he was no economist. I don't pay attention to his economics. I admire him for his style and also for his independence of thought and his critique of totalitarianism.

 

[pecksniff]

You can lie to yourself all you need peck.

But you're not lying to me.

You have never, ever contradicted me and been right.